M/S.Sri Jayalakshmi Transport vs. The Superintendent Of GST And Central Excise
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Jayalakshmi Transport, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated September 27, 2023, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Trichy. The petitioner contended that the notice was not in accordance with the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Rules, 2017. They argued that Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, exempted the intra-State supply of service by way of access to a road or bridge on payment of toll charges from GST. The petitioner also stated they had already paid CGST of Rs. 11,216/- and SGST of Rs. 11,216/- towards tax liability difference, and their transport agent was exempted. The revenue argued that the impugned proceeding was merely a show cause notice, and the petitioner could submit objections during the enquiry.
Held
The Court held that the impugned proceeding was only a show cause notice. Citing the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006 (12) SCC 28), the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The Court reasoned that it is premature to interfere with a show cause notice, as the petitioner has an alternative remedy to raise all their grounds and objections before the concerned authority. The Court directed that the writ petition be closed with liberty to the petitioner to raise their grounds before the concerned authority by way of objections within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The concerned authority was directed to consider these objections and pass a suitable order in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Trichy, is in accordance with the provisions of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Rules, 2017, particularly in light of Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, which exempts services by way of access to a road or bridge on payment of toll charges from GST. Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the show cause notice is not in accordance with law and the relevant provisions. They relied on Notification No. 12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, which exempts toll charges for road/bridge access from GST. They also stated that they had already paid the tax liability difference and their transport agent was exempted. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the impugned proceeding is only a show cause notice, and the petitioner can submit their objections during the enquiry.
Sections Cited
Notification No.12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER The show cause notice issued by the second respondent in C.No.IV/19/29/2023-GST ADJN DIN 20230959XN010042424D dated 27.09.2023 is under challenge in this writ petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned show cause notice is not in accordance with law and 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis provisions of CGST/TNGST Act 2017 and TNGST Rules 2017. The Government of India, vide a Notification No.12/2017 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017, has exempted the intra-State supply of service of “service by way of access to a road or a bridge on payment of toll charges” from payment of GST, vide Sl.No.23, Heading 9967. The said notification is also applicable to this case. He further submits that the petitioner has already paid the amount of CGST of Rs.11,216/- and SGST Rs.11,216/- towards the tax liability difference and their transport agent M/s.Ramco Cements is already exempted from the tax liability. However, the second respondent, without considering the same, has issued the impugned show cause notice.
Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned Standing Counsel, who takes notice for the respondents, submits that the impugned proceedings is only a show cause notice and therefore, the petitioner Company can very well submit its objections during the enquiry. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The impugned proceedings is only a show cause notice. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NCC : Yes / No. Index : Yes / No. Internet : Yes / No. To 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The Superintendent of GST & Central Excise, Mofussil Range, I Division, Trichy.
The Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Trichy I Division, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST and C.Ex.Adjudication Section, Trichy I Division, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirappalli – 620 001. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis B.PUGALENDHI, J. ogy
2024 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.